James A Sutherland wrote: > > You were premature, because you invoked a veto on an idea you > hadn't even looked at. You saw the word "rename", and leapt to > completely the wrong conclusion.
I'm beginning to resent your putting words in my 'mouth.' :-( I did nothing of the sort. > > *Now* the concept makes sense. Looking back through this thread, > > this is the most clearly (by far) that it's been described. > > Agreed; the earlier explanation was scattered across multiple > posting from multiple people, and would have required reading > the thread to understand the idea. Which I did, and it still wasn't -- and even on re-reading, isn't -- clear. Your precis made it clear. > IMO, you should have done one or the other before vetoing an > unknown proposal :-) I vetoed something that was known, but phrased in such a way that it was readily misconstrued. > (From your comment, can I take it you have withdrawn the veto??) Since it doesn't apply, it doesn't matter. If the discussion ever comes round to actually proposing what it appeared this one was, I'll veto it again at the time. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/> Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/> "Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
